Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?

[Mickey]

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now
St John Chrysosotom

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom, Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.

He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity.** For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession,** and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…
St John Chrysostom

Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love…I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it…Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!..what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38)
St John Chrysostom

 

[diggerdomer]

Robert Eno, late professor of historical theology at Catholic University, wrote The Rise of the Papacy in which he gives documentation from the ECF’s tracing the idea. The desire for a central supreme authority grew out of challenges to unity of faith, the many heresies also influencing many of the ECF’s themselves as well as the decisions of councils, e.g. Elvira excluding married priests/bishops. Then with imperialization, the title of “Pontifex Maximus” was given to the the singular bishop of Rome, Damasus killing off rival supporters, etc.

The Papacy itself is an innovation which to be true must have been fully defined from the beginning of the church; e.g. one cannot invent the idea of papal infallibility, then back-date it to Acts 2. The Catholic interpretation of Matt 16 is reading back into the text something that developed much later. Otherwise, we would see Peter referred to repeatedly in the NT as the head of the church on earth rather than Christ alone.

We would see Peter presiding in Jerusalem at the council and as a singular bishop. Eno, and I think the majority of Catholic scholars, recognize there never was a singular monarchial bishop in the NT period, in Jerusalem or in Rome as indicated by Hermas and First Clement.

That’s a very good book. I recommend it for anyone interested in learning more about the history of the Papacy.

It’s been a while since I’ve read it…I don’t recall the second para in your posting as being from the book from Eno, though, is it? That para is your thoughts, not Eno’s right? I don’t have a copy of the book at hand or I’d check.

 

[stephraim]

We would see Peter presiding in Jerusalem at the council and as a singular bishop. Eno, and I think the majority of Catholic scholars, recognize there never was a singular monarchial bishop in the NT period, in Jerusalem or in Rome as indicated by Hermas and First Clement.

Use of plural we does not place individual authority in question (e.g., 1 Cor 1:23; 4:10; 2 Cor 1:12; 8:1; Gal 1:8), so a monarchial bishop, as you put it, is not out of the question.

 

[stephraim]

The Papacy itself is an innovation which to be true must have been fully defined from the beginning of the church;

According to this logic, then the Most Holy Trinity is an innovation. The fact that Christ is homoousios, consubstantialem with the Father is an innovation. The fact that there are two Natures in Christ, one fully human and the other fully Divine, existing hypostatically in one Person is an innovation. All these fundamental truths of Christianity must be innovation because neither are explicitly defined from the beginning of the Church. There are many, many passages in Scripture which speak forth these truths implicitly, almost explicitly, yet they were both denied by various sects. They were plain to the orthodox.

Similarly, the ‘Papal’ passages in Matthew, Luke, and John were plain to the orthodox. Has the centralized power grown? Yes, indeed, which is why Pope Benedict XVI has said that we can not expect anything more from our Orthodox brethren than what was expected in the first millennium. Still, in that time the See of Rome was “adorned with many prerogatives.” (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

 

[pedro22]

Your argument recognizes the problem and tries to solve it. I think the words “drink of this fruit of the vine” refers to the cup of which Jesus said “this is my blood” from which all the disciples just drank and therefore shows the intent was not to perform a miracle.

No, the development of the notion of transubstantiation in the bread and cup was an over-reaction to docetic tendencies in Syria where Ignatius lived that denied the physicality of Christ.

If Jesus did not really give his blood during that Passover meal, why then is he called our Passover lamb? A true Passover lamb had to be killed, it’s blood spread, and it’s flesh eaten. The only way this could happen is if Jesus performed the miracle that he did on that last supper.

If you had read the article, you would have understood that the “fruit of the vine” Jesus said he would not drink was the 4th and last cup of the seder meal. It is the same cup that Jesus refers to when he prays to the Father “take away this cup” in the garden. It is this 4th cup that he finally partakes of on the cross to complete his Paschal sacrifice (John 19:28-30). Notice that just as he said he would do, he only drinks of the “fruit of the vine” again when his kingdom comes in glory as he dies on the cross.

 

[Randy_Carson]

After you are forgiven of your sins in confession, do you still have to do your penance? Yes or no?

Nice dodge.

Now this.

After the break of communion between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the “Estonian issue” in the mid-1990’s, Rev. Chrysostom Frank, and Eastern Orthodox priest from South Africa took the occasion to do some serious soul-searching and weighed in on the problems facing the Orthodox world with the following thoughts:
This spat between Moscow and Constantinople illustrates a basic ecclesiological problem which has not been adequately dealt with in the Orthodox world for over nine hundred years-the question of communion and an effective universal primacy. The Byzantine imperial government, the Turkish empire, and Communist political power successively and largely successfully kept the lid on the problem. They ensured, ironically, that on the surface peace within the Orthodox world was somehow maintained, while local Churches simultaneously became more and more national and/or ethnic in character. The emergence of political nationalism and the various wars of independence in the nineteenth century only exacerbated the underlying problem.

**The situation created by the schism with the See of Rome in the eleventh century left the Orthodox East without an adequate ecclesiological and theological basis for dealing with the immense problem of how to ensure the unity and communion of the local Churches without the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome. **

Now the Byzantine emperors, Turkish sultans, and Communist politburos are gone. Our Orthodox Churches are free. We are faced squarely with a problem hidden for centuries-how can we, the various local Churches, live, act, and think like the Church, which we claim that we are, rather than like, as Vladimir Soloviev said, a mere conglomerate of national Churches, formally constituting a single communion, but characterized by discord, hostility, jealousy, and hatred?

On the day when the Russian and Greek Churches formally break communion with each other, Soloviev argued, it will be seen that the “Oecumenical Eastern Church is a mere fiction and that there exists in the East nothing but isolated national Churches”!

The present tiff between Constantinople and Moscow might well compel one to take more seriously the logic of Soloviev’s argument. Perhaps even more compelling, however, is the realization of both the need, and the freedom we now have, to face directly the problem created by the Schism of 1054.

Perhaps now is the time, the *kairos, *to do something which is simultaneously terribly radical and terribly conservative -to call on the Bishop of Rome to act as arbiter in this squabble between Moscow and Constantinople. Perhaps now is the time to recognize the folly and foolishness of our ecclesiastical structure which has produced national Churches which seem interminably locked into their own self-interest and which often lack any discernible catholic spirit and mind.

**Perhaps now is the time to look deeply at our need for the Petrine ministry, which was so profoundly recognized by Eastern saints such as Theodore the Studite and Maximus the Confessor and which we still sing about in our liturgical celebrations (e.g., texts for the commemoration of St. Gregory the Great). **

Perhaps this tiff between Moscow and Constantinople is the God-given occasion to reconsider all the polemical argumentation that we have used to justify and to maintain the Schism of 1054. Perhaps now is the time to realize that where all of us-on all sides of the disputes-have stood and continue to stand is not entirely on the fullness of catholic truth.

Perhaps now is the time to fall down on our knees and mutually ask forgiveness of each other-Romans, Greeks, Slavs, Arabs, Muscovites, Constantinopolitans, “converts,” all of us! And maybe when we rise up again we will find ourselves at a most peculiar place-at the same Eucharistic Chalice.

Staggeringly honest assessment, don’t you think?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your continued spewing of insults shows that you have not much more to say.

I have not insulted you. I’ve simply pointed out that the Orthodox Churches (it would be wrong to claim that they have anything remotely resembling unity) have not made disciples of all nations, and that they are little more than ethnic and nationalistic backwaters.

The Orthodox priest that I quoted above seems to hold pretty much the same view.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If it is Isaiah 22 you are referencing, I will provide St Augustine again for you.

Augustine on Peter? Let’s continue reading, shall we?

Augustine on Peter
catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Documents/Webster2Augustine.doc

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” (Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51).

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.” Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.” To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298

“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ “Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76

“And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?” In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223

“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.” In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251

“And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.” In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513

“[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.” Retractations,1:21(A.D. 427),in GILES, 177

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Among these [apostles] it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19)… Quite rightly too did the Lord after his resurrection entrust his sheep to Peter to be fed. It’s not, you see, that he alone among the disciples was fit to feed the Lord’s sheep; but when Christ speaks to one man, unity is being commended to us. And he first speaks to Peter, because Peter is first among the apostles.” (Sermon 295:2-4 (A.D. 410), in WOA3,8:197-199)

“So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship.” (On the Gospel of John, Tract 124:5 (A.D. 416), in NPNF1, VII:450)

“For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy which he bore among the Disciples.” (On the Psalms,108[109]:1(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:536)

“The authority of Cyprian does not alarm me, because I am reassured by his humility. We know, indeed, the great merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but is it in any way greater than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of whom the said Cyprian speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus?

‘For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those who were late and newly come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had before been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted the counsel of truth, and readily assented to the legitimate grounds which Paul maintained; giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren and colleagues for the common health and weal.’(Cyprian, Epistle 76[70]:3)

Here is a passage in which Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle … I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever?” (On Baptism against the Donatist, 2:1,1(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:425-426)

 

[w_stewart]

The Pope would not and could not ratify a council without the support of the other bishops. It was a collegial process. Why do you not understand this?

When the Pope rejected the decree of an ecumenical council elevating the status of Constantinople, he did it alone without counsulting his bishops.

 

[YADA]

…For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy which he bore among the Disciples.” (On the Psalms,108[109]:1(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:536)…

Two great posts Randy …

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

According to this logic, then the Most Holy Trinity is an innovation. The fact that Christ is homoousios, consubstantialem with the Father is an innovation. The fact that there are two Natures in Christ, one fully human and the other fully Divine, existing hypostatically in one Person is an innovation. All these fundamental truths of Christianity must be innovation because neither are explicitly defined from the beginning of the Church. There are many, many passages in Scripture which speak forth these truths implicitly, almost explicitly, yet they were both denied by various sects. They were plain to the orthodox.

Similarly, the ‘Papal’ passages in Matthew, Luke, and John were plain to the orthodox. Has the centralized power grown? Yes, indeed, which is why Pope Benedict XVI has said that we can not expect anything more from our Orthodox brethren than what was expected in the first millennium. Still, in that time the See of Rome was “adorned with many prerogatives.” (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

The doctrine of an infallible unbroken voice must precede all other doctrines since the former defines the latter. I shall correct Theodoret in saying “…we can not expect anything more from our Orthodox brethren than what was expected in the…” period of sacred scripture. In the earliest period of the church we do not find Peter as head of the church on earth or an office for such other than Christ, nor Peter as singular bishop or having successors or qualifications set out for such, in the absence of which there can be no inspired pronouncements or definitions in addition to what was revealed in sacred scripture. The apostles were ALL guided into all the truth; if it was not revealed to and by them, it is not binding upon followers of Christ.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

 

[YADA]

The doctrine of an infallible unbroken voice must precede all other doctrines since the former defines the latter. I shall correct Theodoret in saying “…we can not expect anything more from our Orthodox brethren than what was expected in the…” period of sacred scripture. In the earliest period of the church we do not find Peter as head of the church on earth or an office for such other than Christ, nor Peter as singular bishop or having successors or qualifications set out for such, in the absence of which there can be no inspired pronouncements or definitions in addition to what was revealed in sacred scripture. The apostles were ALL guided into all the truth; if it was not revealed to and by them, it is not binding upon followers of Christ.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

You say this but it is categorically untrue … scripture itself illustrates offices for the Apostles … Peter specifically states that they must fill the “office” left vacant by Judas … Paul writes the qualifications for ledership int he church …

Scripture illustrates a dynamic Church that establishes new offices as the needs arise …

And Peter held an Office, the holder of the Keys … The foundation chosen by Jesus to unify, feed and strengthen the fledgling Church …

All of that is found in scriptures written by people who initially thought Jesus was coming back in their life times … you worry about how they were not mor explicit about chruch organiation …

1] They thought that Jesus would return in months or a few years … this expectation began to diminish … then they had to re-assess …

2] The primary focus of what was written down is on Jesus - not those who walked with Him … the Scriptures are small in volume … they do not cover every detail we might wish today …

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You say this but it is categorically untrue … scripture itself illustrates offices for the Apostles … Peter specifically states that they must fill the “office” left vacant by Judas … Paul writes the qualifications for ledership int he church …

Scripture illustrates a dynamic Church that establishes new offices as the needs arise …

And Peter held an Office, the holder of the Keys … The foundation chosen by Jesus to unify, feed and strengthen the fledgling Church …

All of that is found in scriptures written by people who initially thought Jesus was coming back in their life times … you worry about how they were not mor explicit about chruch organiation …

1] They thought that Jesus would return in months or a few years … this expectation began to diminish … then they had to re-assess …

2] The primary focus of what was written down is on Jesus - not those who walked with Him … the Scriptures are small in volume … they do not cover every detail we might wish today …

scripture itself illustrates offices for the Apostles … Peter specifically states that they must fill the “office” left vacant by Judas .

.

Judas was prophecied to be replaced and the qualifications for his replacement cannot be repeated: witness of the resurrection of Christ.

Paul writes the qualifications for ledership int he church …

Yes, in each church: 1) bishop/presbyter/shepherds and 2) deacons

Scripture illustrates a dynamic Church that establishes new offices as the needs arise

What is an example?

And Peter held an Office, the holder of the Keys … The foundation chosen by Jesus to unify, feed and strengthen the fledgling Church

“Holder of the keys” is not an office identified in sacred scripture nor are there any qualifications for such. Where is any “foundation” identified other than Christ and the apostles and prophets? Yes, Peter WITH his confession of Christ was the foundation, and where are any qualifications for a succession of a central supreme head?

All of that is found in scriptures written by people who initially thought Jesus was coming back in their life times … you worry about how they were not mor explicit about chruch organiation …

1] They thought that Jesus would return in months or a few years … this expectation began to diminish … then they had to re-assess

This is an acknowledgement that an earthly supreme infallible head office with qualifications is not in scripture, yet Peter himself wrote about the time of the Lord’s coming being as a thousand years as a day with the Lord. There was no felt need to define an earthly infallible head.

2] The primary focus of what was written down is on Jesus - not those who walked with Him … the Scriptures are small in volume … they do not cover every detail we might wish today

Actually there is much more written about the church after Jesus’ earthly ministry, yet not a word about a central supreme infallible head with qualifications for such an important successive office. There is much written about the qualifications of Jesus for his supreme headship over **all things **for the church.

 

[YADA]

Judas was prophecied to be replaced and the qualifications for his replacement cannot be repeated: witness of the resurrection of Christ.

Judas was not “prophecied” … Peter quoted hebrew scriptures equating the office held by the apostles with similar offices in the jewish hsitory/tradition … Judas was not a witness to the resurrection

Yes, in each church: 1) bishop/presbyter/shepherds and 2) deacons

What is an example?

The Bishops are the successors to the apostles, the priestly office developed as the chruch grew and the Bishop could not reach all of the faithful on a regular basis …

The role od deacon developed specifically because the apostles could not spread the Gospel and establish the communities and care for those in need like the widows and orphans … this task was delegated .to the ‘deacons’

“Holder of the keys” is not an office identified in sacred scripture nor are there any qualifications for such. Where is any “foundation” identified other than Christ and the apostles and prophets? Yes, Peter WITH his confession of Christ was the foundation, and where are any qualifications for a succession of a central supreme head?

The office of the prime minister [davidic kingdom] is identified with possession of the “Keys” and the authority to open and shut on behalf of the king … the people call the holder of this office “Father”

This is an acknowledgement that an earthly supreme infallible head office with qualifications is not in scripture, yet Peter himself wrote about the time of the Lord’s coming being as a thousand years as a day with the Lord. There was no felt need to define an earthly infallible head.

Sure - with God a second is like a millinium … but not so with the people … do you deny that the first Christians thought that Jesus’ return ws going to be very soo, in their lifetimes? … Because they were expecting exactly that … that is why they sold everyhting they had, shared it among themselves …

by the time Paul was on the scene he had to help them understand that even though many had died - they would still be taken up to heaven - Paul had to assure them of these because the people dispaired …

Another issue Paul had to deal with was though who - awaiting Christ’s return - were living large off the toil of others - not working …

Actually there is much more written about the church after Jesus’ earthly ministry, yet not a word about a central supreme infallible head with qualifications for such an important successive office. There is much written about the qualifications of Jesus for his supreme headship over **all things **for the church.

There have many many many posts that dispute your position … you may intepret scripture different … but to assert that all others are wrong nd that you are the ultimate authorityy is to make yourself a “Pope”

 

[twb1621]

Aha! Now I see that this theory of the keys being linked to Isaiah 22 comes from James Akin. He seems to be quoted more than the Church Fathers!

cute, my Brother.

 

[twb1621]

Your argument recognizes the problem and tries to solve it. I think the words “drink of this fruit of the vine” refers to the cup of which Jesus said “this is my blood” from which all the disciples just drank and therefore shows the intent was not to perform a miracle.

No, the development of the notion of transubstantiation in the bread and cup was an over-reaction to docetic tendencies in Syria where Ignatius lived that denied the physicality of Christ.

Read the Gospel again and take notice to what is said by the Apostles when they refer to this practice. You can think what you want but the Eucharistic Sacramant has been part of Christian Worship since te beginning including those who walk with and survived Jesus. You don’t have to understand it to acknowledge the truth.

 

[twb1621]

If the papacy is God’s gift and indeed the most important, why is it not referred to as a gift in sacred scripture that speaks of many kinds of gifts?

If you want to center the thread on the Papacy I would be happy to discuss it but I will not carry it on in this thread, it is not the subject. No offense.

 

[twb1621]

Robert Eno, late professor of historical theology at Catholic University, wrote The Rise of the Papacy in which he gives documentation from the ECF’s tracing the idea. The desire for a central supreme authority grew out of challenges to unity of faith, the many heresies also influencing many of the ECF’s themselves as well as the decisions of councils, e.g. Elvira excluding married priests/bishops. Then with imperialization, the title of “Pontifex Maximus” was given to the the singular bishop of Rome, Damasus killing off rival supporters, etc.

The Papacy itself is an innovation which to be true must have been fully defined from the beginning of the church; e.g. one cannot invent the idea of papal infallibility, then back-date it to Acts 2. The Catholic interpretation of Matt 16 is reading back into the text something that developed much later. Otherwise, we would see Peter referred to repeatedly in the NT as the head of the church on earth rather than Christ alone.

We would see Peter presiding in Jerusalem at the council and as a singular bishop. Eno, and I think the majority of Catholic scholars, recognize there never was a singular monarchial bishop in the NT period, in Jerusalem or in Rome as indicated by Hermas and First Clement.

First of all, we were refering to the papacy, not infallibility which is a subject seperate of the first. Secondly, Luther was a Catholic priest and I certainly do not accept His opinions nor do I accept any man’s without credible support for his offerings so show me what he refers to and I will show you where or if he is accurate or opinionated. The Church Fathers lived it, He didn’t.

 

[twb1621]

Robert Eno, late professor of historical theology at Catholic University, wrote The Rise of the Papacy in which he gives documentation from the ECF’s tracing the idea. The desire for a central supreme authority grew out of challenges to unity of faith, the many heresies also influencing many of the ECF’s themselves as well as the decisions of councils, e.g. Elvira excluding married priests/bishops. Then with imperialization, the title of “Pontifex Maximus” was given to the the singular bishop of Rome, Damasus killing off rival supporters, etc.

The Papacy itself is an innovation which to be true must have been fully defined from the beginning of the church; e.g. one cannot invent the idea of papal infallibility, then back-date it to Acts 2. The Catholic interpretation of Matt 16 is reading back into the text something that developed much later. Otherwise, we would see Peter referred to repeatedly in the NT as the head of the church on earth rather than Christ alone.

We would see Peter presiding in Jerusalem at the council and as a singular bishop. Eno, and I think the majority of Catholic scholars, recognize there never was a singular monarchial bishop in the NT period, in Jerusalem or in Rome as indicated by Hermas and First Clement.

Although I am not intimately familiar with the writings of Robert Eno, It is clear that you have inserted your opinions into your reference of Him. I do not have his book to research and Because I am not familiar I will continue to stand by the ECF and they are not by any means difficult to understand. You have been provided with actual statements from many historic sources yet you continue to argue the matter based solely on your opinions against the very History of Christianity. Offer credible sources with your rebuttals at least to substantiate yourself. Your referral to Robert Eno’s writings for instance, would best be presented with some excerpt to back your claims.